CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The methodology described in the previous chapter provided the baseline for data- gathering. In this chapter, the presentation of data is systematically linked to the format of the self-developed questionnaire attached in the appendix. The following will be used to analyze data: description of the sample, main results, discussion, presentation and interpretations of the results.
This chapter will focus on the analysis and interpretation of data that was collected for this study. According to De Vos (1998:203), data analysis entails that the analyst break down data into constituent parts to obtain answers to research questions and to test hypotheses. The analysis of research data does not in its own provide the answers to research questions.
The purpose of interpreting the data is to reduce it to an intelligible and interpretable form so that the relations of research problems can be studied and tested, and conclusions drawn. On the other hand, when the researcher interprets the research results, he/she studies them for their meaning and implications (De Vos, 1998:203). The next section will discuss the characteristics of the sample in order for the findings to be clearly understood.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE
As stated from the first chapter, the goal of the study is to conduct research on social factors (set of social factors) influencing employee well-being. The researcher employed a cross-sectional survey. Data was collected by using questionnaires. The questionnaires were delivered by hand to the respondents. A letter of approval to conduct the study and a covering letter explaining the research were attached to the questionnaires. The population of the study is
employees from the Department of Social Development (Germiston) in Gauteng Province. The total number of employees at the Germiston office was 124.
The sample was randomly selected from the above population. The sample size then consisted of 60 respondents, although 27 questionnaires were not returned, thus reducing the number of returned questionnaires to 33. This might be a problem as the population is perhaps not well represented. However, as this is a small-scale study that aims to merely describe well-being in a relatively small departmental office, this low return rate is not necessarily a serious problem.
Thus only 33 questionnaires were returned, of which 17 were from social workers, 11 from administration staff, 2 from security officials and 3 from management. The size of the sample that was identified was 60; only 33 questionnaires were completed, reducing the sample size to 33. The sample in this study includes social workers, administration staff and security officials. It should be clear that the sample mostly consists of social workers and administrative staff, whilst the other job categories are clearly under-represented. This implies that most of the results will be generalized to the social worker category or administrative group.
The respondents were males and females of different ages and marital status.
The respondents had different academic qualifications. As stated in the previous chapter, the respondents completed the specially designed questionnaire as well as the OCA scale. Data was collected in August 2003 according to the schedule as set out in the previous chapter. The researcher had to remind the respondents to complete the questionnaires and a low response rate was obtained. The next section consists of the main results, which would be reported by means of frequencies, T-tests and cross-tabulations.
4.3 MAIN RESULTS
4.3.1 Data analysis and interpretation
The main results will draw on the description of the independent and dependent variables of the study. Since the sample size was less than 100 respondents, the
researcher will mainly use raw frequencies to describe the biographic section of the sample. The N-value cannot exceed the total number of respondents.
Frequency distribution tables help the researcher to be able to see the spread of the sample or to describe the sample. In other words, the researcher becomes familiar with the demographic variables through the use of frequency distribution tables.
The SPPS Version 11.0 was used by the researcher to analyze the data.
Univariate analysis was used in the description of the sample in terms of demographic characteristics as well as instrument scores. Since one of the objectives of this research is to provide a profile or description of the sample in terms of various variables, this analysis is sufficient.
4.3.2 Section A
4.3.2.1 Demographic statistics
The following section provides an overview of the demographic profile of the sample.
4.3.2.1.1 Question 1: Gender
Table 4.1:
Gender distribution of sample
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Male 8 24.2 24.2 24.2
Female 25 75.8 75.8 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Gender
75.8%
24.2%
Female
Male
Graph 4.1: Gender
Table 4.1 indicates that there are 25 female respondents and 8 male respondents.
In total, there are 33 respondents. As the frequency table clearly shows, there is imbalance between male and female respondents. Women are by far in the majority (25). The extremely small number of male respondents will make it difficult to influence the results.
4.3.2.1.2 Question 2: Age
Table 4.2: Different ages
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
30 or younger 16 48.5 53.3 53.3
Older than 30 years 14 42.4 46.7 100.0
Valid
Total 30 90.9 100.0
Missing System 3 9.1
Total 33 100.0
Age in complete years
46.7%
53.3%
Older than 30 years
30 or younger
Graph 4.2: Age in complete years
Table 4.2 presents the age distribution of 33 respondents. The age range of the respondents was from 21 – 72 years of age. More than half of the respondents (16) are 30 years old or younger; 14 respondents are older than 30 years. 3 people did not respond.
4.3.2.1.3 Question 3: Educational qualifications
Table 4.3:
Highest educational qualifications
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Illiterate 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
Level 2: Grade 10 (Std 8) 1 3.0 3.0 6.1
Level 3: Grade 11 (Std 9) 2 6.1 6.1 12.1
Level 4: Grade 12 (Std 10) 4 12.1 12.1 24.2
Level 5: One year Certificate or
Diploma 6 18.2 18.2 42.4
Level 6: B Degree/Higher Diploma 2 6.1 6.1 48.5
Level 7: Honours degree 15 45.5 45.5 93.9
Level 8: Masters/Doctoral degree 2 6.1 6.1 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Highest Qualifications
Level 8 : Mas
ter s/Do Lev
el 7 : Honour s de Leve
l 6 : B Degr
ee/
H Lev
el 5 : One
year C Lev
el 4:
Grad e 12 (
S Lev
el 3 : Grad
e 11 ( Lev
el 2 : G rade
10 ( Illit
erate
Count
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
2 15
2 6 4 2 1 1
Graph 4.3: Highest qualifications
Table 4.3 shows the distribution of highest academic qualifications amongst the 33 respondents. It is clear that the respondents are mostly literate with only 1 respondent being illiterate. The mean qualification for the respondents is Honours Degree, 15 respondents; followed by a post-Standard 10, one year Certificate or Diploma (6 respondents); or Standard 10 (4 respondents). Two respondents hold Master’s Degrees. Most of the respondents have some form of education.
4.3.2.1.4 Question 4: Language
Table 4.4:
Home language
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
English 6 18.2 18.2 18.2
Afrikaans 7 21.2 21.2 39.4
African 20 60.6 60.6 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Home Langauge
60.6%
39.4%
African
English or English
Graph 4.4: Home language
Table 4.4 presents the distribution of home languages of 33 respondents. It is clear that 20 respondents speak an African language, 6 speak English and 7 speak Afrikaans.
4.3.2.1.5 Question 4.1: Language (recoded)
Table 4.5:
Home language (recoded)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
English or Afrikaans 13 39.4 39.4 39.4
African 20 60.6 60.6 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
4.3.2.1.6 Question 5: Race
Table 4.6:
Race
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
White 7 21.2 21.2 21.2
Black 23 69.7 69.7 90.9
Coloured 2 6.1 6.1 97.0
Indian 1 3.0 3.0 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Race
Indian Coloured
Black White
Count
30
20
10
0 2
23
7
\ Graph 4.5: Race
Table 4.6 indicates that 23 respondents are Black; 7 respondents are White; 2 respondents are Coloured and only 1 respondent is Indian. Thus the sample is biased towards African respondents, followed by Whites.
4.3.2.1.7 Question 6: Marital status
Table 4.7:
Marital status
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Never married 14 42.4 42.4 42.4
Married to first partner 12 36.4 36.4 78.8
Traditionally married 2 6.1 6.1 84.8
Divorced 4 12.1 12.1 97.0
Widowed 1 3.0 3.0 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Marital status
Widow
ed Divorce
d Traditional
y ma rried Marri
ed to first
par Never
married
Count
16 14
12 10 8
6 4
2
0 1
4 2
12 14
Graph 4.6: Marital status
The marital status of the 33 respondents is reflected in Table 4.7. It is clear that the majority of the respondents (14) at the time of the survey were not married; 12 respondents are married to their first partner; 2 respondents are traditionally married; 4 respondents are divorced and 1 respondent is widowed.
4.3.2.1.8 Question 7: Occupation
Table 4.8:
Different occupations
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Social worker 16 48.5 51.6 51.6
Administrative clerk 11 33.3 35.5 87.1
Security officer 1 3.0 3.2 90.3
Management 3 9.1 9.7 100.0
Valid
Total 31 93.9 100.0
Missing System 2 6.1
Total 33 100.0
Graph 4.7: Occupation
Table 4.8 indicates that 16 respondents are social workers; 11 respondents are administration clerks; 1 respondent is a security officer, and 3 respondents are in management positions. As was indicated, the sample is inclined towards the social worker category.
4.3.2.1.9 Question 8: Job title
Table 4.9:
Different job titles
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Missing 4 12.1 12.1 12.1
A/C 1 3.0 3.0 15.2
Admin Clerk 3 9.1 9.1 24.2
Admin Officer 1 3.0 3.0 27.3
Chief Social Worker 3 9.1 9.1 36.4
Data Capture 1 3.0 3.0 39.4
Field Worker 2 6.1 6.1 45.5
Food Service 1 3.0 3.0 48.5
Junior Social Worker 1 3.0 3.0 51.5
Principal Typist 1 3.0 3.0 54.5
Security Officer 1 3.0 3.0 57.6
Senior Admin Clerk 1 3.0 3.0 60.6
Senior Secretary 1 3.0 3.0 63.6
Senior Social Worker 5 15.2 15.2 78.8
Social Worker 5 15.2 15.2 93.9
Supervisor 1 3.0 3.0 97.0
Switchboard Operator 1 3.0 3.0 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.9 indicates that 4 people did not respond about their job title. One respondent is an accounting clerk; 3 respondents are administration clerks; 1 respondent is an administration officer; 3 respondents are chief social workers; 1 respondent is a data capturer; 2 respondents are fieldworkers; 1 respondent is a food service worker; 1 respondent is a junior social worker; 1 respondent is a principal typist; 1 respondent is a security officer; 1 respondent is a senior administration clerk; 1 respondent is a senior secretary; 5 respondents are senior social workers; 5 respondents are social workers; 1 respondent is a supervisor
and 1 respondent is a switchboard operator. Social workers are by far in the majority and therefore are inclined to influence the results.
4.3.2.1.10 Question 9: Family income
Table 4.10:
Family income
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
R0-00 – R2 999 per month 5 15.2 16.7 16.7
R3 000 – 5 999 per month 10 30.3 33.3 50.0
R6 000 - R8 999 per month 8 24.2 26.7 76.7
R9 000 - 11 999 per month 3 9.1 10.0 86.7
R15 000 - R17 999 per month 1 3.0 3.3 90.0
R18 000 - R 20 999 per month 2 6.1 6.7 96.7
R 24 000 plus per month 1 3.0 3.3 100.0
Valid
Total 30 90.9 100.0
Missing System 3 9.1
Total 33 100.0
Income
50.0%
50.0%
R6 000 or more per m
R0-00 - R5 999 pe
Graph 4.8: Income
Table 4.10 indicates that 5 respondents are earning between R0 – R2 999 p.m.;
10 respondents are earning R5 999 or less; 8 respondents are earning R6 000 or more p.m.; 3 respondents are earning between R9 000 – R11 999 p.m.; 1 respondent is earning between R15 000 – R17 999 p.m.; 2 respondents are earning between R18 000 - R20 999 p.m. and 1 respondent is earning R24 000 plus p.m. Three people did not respond. The mean income is between R2 999 – R5 999 p.m.
In order to simplify the income categories these were reduced to two groups. It should be clear that half the respondents are in the lower income category, while the other half are in the higher income category.
4.3.2.1.11 Question 9: Family income (recoded)
Table 4.11:
Family income (recoded)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
R0-00 - R5 999 per month 15 45.5 50.0 50.0
R6 000 or more per month 15 45.5 50.0 100.0
Valid
Total 30 90.9 100.0
Missing System 3 9.1
Total 33 100.0
4.3.2.2 Discussion of the above results
The demographic information shows that there is gender imbalance, that is, there are more female respondents than males. Therefore, the results will be biased towards female opinions. The majority of the respondents are 30 years old and younger. The oldest respondent is 72 years old. The respondents seem to be literate, as most of them are postgraduates. The majority of the respondents speak African languages and the minority are either English- or Afrikaans- speaking. Africans are in the majority; Whites, Coloureds and Indians are in the minority.
Most of the respondents have never been married, and only a few are married to their first partner. A small percentage is either widowed or divorced. Social workers are by far in the majority. The results also show that most of the respondents are social workers, from junior to top management levels. Social workers are not working in isolation as they are backed by administration personnel, food service personnel and security officers. The results further show that the lowest salary earned by the respondents is between R0 – R2 999 and the highest salary earned by the respondents is R24 000 and higher per month.
4.3.3 SECTION B
In the following section, relevant data about the response frequencies of employees at Social Development (Germiston) to the different questionnaires is reported. The objective of Table 4.12, consisting of question 10 – 26 is to analyze those questions which had Yes/Unsure/No responses as developed by the researcher to get the perceptions of the respondents regarding the factors affecting their well-being.
4.3.3.1 The self-designed questionnaire
A self-designed questionnaire was used to explore various issues of social factors influencing employee well-being (see Appendix D).
This questionnaire has the objective of measuring social factors influencing employee well-being. This questionnaire has 18 items. The items are as follows:
• Feedback about job performance
• Salary increase
• Promotion
• Disciplinary hearing
• Reward for good performance
• Shift work (Day and night duty)
• Fringe benefits – pension fund
• Fringe benefits – medical aid
• Fringe benefits – housing allowance
• Overtime work
• Leave (paternity, sick, study or holiday)
• Downsizing
• Retrenchment
• Filling of vacant posts
• In-service training
• Team-building exercises
• Equipments to fulfil duties
This data will be interpreted together with the Organization Climate Audit (OCA) (Perspektief College) results to draw up a profile of employee well-being at Social Development (Germiston).
This measuring instrument aims to gather data to address the following research objective:
• To draw up a profile of employee well-being at Social Development.
4.3.3.1.1 The descriptive statistics of the self-designed questionnaire
The following table indicates descriptive statistics on the different questions regarding work-related issues as developed by the researcher. A short interpretation is provided underneath each question to explain the researcher’s understanding of the result.
Table 4.12:
Descriptive statistics on the different questions regarding work-related issues
Yes No Total
Count 14 18 32
10. Did you get feedback about your job performance in the past year?
14 respondents received feedback about their job performance. 18 respondents did not receive feedback in the past year.1 respondent did not respond.
% 43.8% 56.3% 100.0%
Count 29 4 33
11. Did you receive a salary increase in the past year?
29 respondents received a salary increase and 4 respondents did not receive salary increase in the past year.
This could be because they are still on probation. (Newly appointed employees in the department serve 12 months before they can be deemed permanent..)
% 87.9% 12.1% 100.0%
Count 3 30 33
12. Were you promoted in the past year?
3 respondents were promoted and 30 respondents were not
promoted in the past year. % 9.1% 90.9% 100.0%
Count 4 29 33
13. Were you a subject of a disciplinary hearing in the past year?
4 respondents were the subject of a disciplinary hearing and 29 respondents were not the subject of a disciplinary hearing in the past year.
% 12.1% 87.9% 100.0%
Count 5 28 33
14. Were you rewarded for good performance in the past year?
5 respondents were rewarded for good performance and 28 respondents were not rewarded for good performance in the past year.
% 15.2% 84.8% 100.0%
Count 2 30 32
15. Have you worked night shift in the past year?
2 respondents have worked night shift and 30 respondents have not worked night shift in the past year. This could be because of the fact that in this study only security officials work shifts – that is, day and night shifts. 1 respondent did not respond.
% 6.3% 93.8% 100.0%
Yes No Total
Count 21 12 33
16. Did you get fringe benefits such as pension funds in the past year?
21 respondents received pension funds and 12 respondents did not receive pension funds in the past year as they are employed on a contract basis; therefore they are not given pension funds.
% 63.6% 36.4% 100.0%
Count 20 13 33
17. Did you get fringe benefits such as medical aid in the past year?
20 respondents received medical aid and 13 respondents did not receive medical aid. Medical aid is optional.
% 60.6% 39.4% 100.0%
Count 17 16 33
18. Did you get fringe benefits such as housing subsidy in the past year?
17 respondents received housing subsidy and 16 respondents did not receive housing subsidy in the past year. Housing subsidy is also optional.
% 51.5% 48.5% 100.0%
Count 16 16 32
19. Were you paid for overtime work in the past year?
16 respondents were paid for overtime and 16 respondents were not paid for overtime in the past year. Overtime is not compulsory. 16 respondents were paid for overtime as there was a major project at the Department of Social Development (Germiston) – the Food Security Scheme. 16 respondents were working after hours, that is, after 16:00 during the week and during the weekends (Saturday and Sunday). 1 respondent did not respond.
% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Count 28 5 33
20. Did you get leave in the past year (paternity, sick, study or holiday)?
28 respondents were given leave (paternity, sick, study or holiday) in the past year. 5 respondents did not get leave as they are still new at the department – that is, they have only been there a few weeks or a few months.
% 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%
Yes Unsure No Total
Count 5 17 11 33
21. Was your department downsized in the past five years?
5 respondents reported that their department was downsized in the past five years, 17 respondents are unsure and 11 respondents reported that there was no departmental downsizing in the past five years. This information is biased.
% 15.2% 51.5% 33.3% 100.0%
Yes Unsure No Total
Count 4 8 21 33
22. Were employees retrenched in the past five years?
4 respondents reported that the employees were retrenched, 8 respondents reported that they are unsure and 21 respondents reported that there were no employees who were retrenched in the past five years.
% 12.1% 24.2% 63.6% 100.0%
Count 22 4 7 33
23. Were vacant positions filled in the past five years?
22 respondents reported that vacant positions were filled, 4 respondents reported that they are unsure and 7 respondents reported that vacant positions were not filled in the past five years.
% 66.7% 12.1% 21.2% 100.0%
Count 29 2 2 33
24. Did employees attend in-service training in the past five years?
29 respondents attended in-service training, 2 respondents reported that they are unsure and 2 respondents reported that they did not attend in-service training in the past five years.
% 87.9% 6.1% 6.1% 100.0%
Count 19 6 8 33
25. Did employees participate in team-building exercises in the past five years?
19 respondents participated in team-building exercises, 6 respondents are unsure and 8 respondents did not participate in team-building exercises in the past five years.
% 57.6% 18.2% 24.2% 100.0%
Count 12 10 11 33
26. Did employees get the necessary equipment to fulfil their duties in the past five years?
12 respondents received the necessary equipment to fulfil their duties, 10 respondents are unsure and 11 respondents reported that they did not receive the necessary equipment to fulfil their duties in the past five years.
% 36.4% 30.3% 33.3% 100.0%
4.3.3.2 Discussion of the above results
Questions 10 – 20 clearly show that the majority of the respondents did not get feedback about their job performance. The majority of the respondents received salary increases in the past year (2002). Only a few did not receive salary increases as they had been working for less than a year at the department (Social Development, Germiston). They are new recruits still serving a probation period,
which is twelve months. The results also show that the majority of the respondents were not promoted in the past year, that is, in 2002.
Most of them were not the subject of a disciplinary hearing. Much as few were promoted; few were also rewarded for good performance. Only security officers are working night-shifts. Fringe benefits such as housing allowances are only given to full-time employees who have been at the department for longer than a year. Full-time new recruits are also entitled to pension funds and medical aid.
Contract workers are not entitled to either of the fringe benefits offered by the department. All the respondents are entitled to take leave. It can be deduced that those who did not take leave were very new to the department.
With regard to questions 21 – 24, that is, downsizing, retrenchment and the filling of vacant posts in the past five years, the respondents are giving biased information as there is no way that some respondents can indicate that there was downsizing, retrenchment and filling of vacant posts, while others are indicating that they are unsure and yet others are indicating that none of the above had happened.
During data collection, administration personnel and security officers were concerned that they never received in-service training. Social workers are receiving a great deal of training. Administration personnel feel that they are not receiving necessary equipment (such as hand gloves), especially when taking applications for Child Support Grants, Disability Grants and Old Age Grants. This could jeopardize their health and well-being.
The above results tie in with one of the objectives (to draw up a profile of employee well-being at Social Development). According to the above results, the respondents are only dissatisfied with the fact that they did not get feedback about their job performance, there were no promotions in 2002 and that they were not rewarded for good performance.
The results are going to be meaningful to management in a sense that they will assist management in improving working conditions and communication, as the
respondents indicated that they are not informed about other issues such as feedback regarding their performance.
Now that the results of the self-designed questionnaire have been discussed, Section C will receive attention.
4.3.4 SECTION C
4.3.4.1 Organisation Climate Audit scale (OCA)
The OCA was designed by Perspective Training College in Potchefstroom Silverton (North West Province). The package of the OCA scale consists of a scale, consisting of 17 subscales, 25 answer sheets, and 2 Paswin Floppy Discs (enabling the researcher to analyze data). The researcher analyzed the data through the use of SPPS.11.0 as administered by Statkon, University of Johannesburg. The purpose of the OCA scale is to evaluate the present climate in the organization and making recommendations for the future. It has 17 subscales and each subscale consists of specific statements to which the respondents are required to respond on five-point scales that will be provided whereby, (1) will indicate Never; (2) Sometimes; (3) Half the Time; (4) Often and (5) Always.
Each subscale has a score ranging from 62 to 68. Lower scores represent the relative presence of social factors influencing employee well-being, whereas higher scores represent the absence of social factors influencing employee well- being. Clinical cutting scores are also established for each subscale, distinguishing various degrees of severity of the problem. One subscale was omitted in respect of administrative staff and security personnel as they do not work directly with the clients. The omitted subscale was: Relationship with clients.
4.3.4.1.1 Question 27: Achievement
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on achievement:
Table 4.13:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about achievement
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
16.00 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
17.00 1 3.0 3.0 6.1
18.00 2 6.1 6.1 12.1
19.00 2 6.1 6.1 18.2
20.00 1 3.0 3.0 21.2
21.00 5 15.2 15.2 36.4
22.00 1 3.0 3.0 39.4
23.00 2 6.1 6.1 45.5
24.00 6 18.2 18.2 63.6
25.00 2 6.1 6.1 69.7
26.00 6 18.2 18.2 87.9
27.00 1 3.0 3.0 90.9
28.00 1 3.0 3.0 93.9
29.00 2 6.1 6.1 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.13 shows the distribution of scores of the 33 respondents, as a measure of achievement. The cutting score for this subscale is 65. OCA is a positive scale, that is, if the cutting score is 65, the respondents should score above 65. This also means that the respondents are not experiencing problems. If they score below 65, then there is a significant problem. Therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of achievement. It is clear from the table that the mean is 23.12, the maximum is 29 and the minimum is 16. The total number of the respondents is 33. On average, the results show that the respondents do not reach their planned work objectives and seem to be less motivated at work.
4.3.4.1.2 Question 28: Job Satisfaction
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on job satisfaction
Table 4.14:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about job satisfaction
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
10.00 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
11.00 1 3.0 3.0 6.1
12.00 4 12.1 12.1 18.2
14.00 3 9.1 9.1 27.3
16.00 1 3.0 3.0 30.3
17.00 1 3.0 3.0 33.3
18.00 3 9.1 9.1 42.4
19.00 1 3.0 3.0 45.5
20.00 1 3.0 3.0 48.5
21.00 1 3.0 3.0 51.5
22.00 4 12.1 12.1 63.6
23.00 3 9.1 9.1 72.7
24.00 2 6.1 6.1 78.8
25.00 7 21.2 21.2 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.14 shows the distribution of scores of 33 respondents for the job satisfaction subscale, as a measure of job satisfaction. The cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of job satisfaction. It is clear from the table that the mean is 19.3, the maximum is 25 and the minimum is 10. The total number of the respondents is 33. On average, this clearly shows that the respondents do not find their job interesting and are no longer committed to their jobs.
4.3.4.1.3 Question 29: Effectiveness of top management
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on effectiveness of top management.
Table 4.15:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about managerial effectiveness
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
9.00 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
10.00 2 6.1 6.1 9.1
11.00 2 6.1 6.1 15.2
12.00 1 3.0 3.0 18.2
13.00 4 12.1 12.1 30.3
14.00 2 6.1 6.1 36.4
15.00 1 3.0 3.0 39.4
16.00 4 12.1 12.1 51.5
17.00 3 9.1 9.1 60.6
18.00 2 6.1 6.1 66.7
19.00 2 6.1 6.1 72.7
20.00 1 3.0 3.0 75.8
21.00 1 3.0 3.0 78.8
22.00 2 6.1 6.1 84.8
23.00 2 6.1 6.1 90.9
24.00 2 6.1 6.1 97.0
35.00 1 3.0 3.0 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.15 shows effectiveness of top management subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of effectiveness of top management. It is clear from the table that the mean is 17, the maximum is 35 and the minimum is 9. The total number of the respondents is
33. The results clearly show that top management promotes the careers of certain workers. The respondents have lost trust in top management; they also feel that top management does not consider them when making decisions.
4.3.4.1.4 Question 30: Effectiveness of immediate supervisor
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on the effectiveness of immediate supervisor.
Table 4.16:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about effectiveness of immediate supervisor
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
7.00 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
9.00 1 3.0 3.0 6.1
12.00 1 3.0 3.0 9.1
13.00 1 3.0 3.0 12.1
14.00 1 3.0 3.0 15.2
15.00 2 6.1 6.1 21.2
16.00 1 3.0 3.0 24.2
17.00 2 6.1 6.1 30.3
18.00 1 3.0 3.0 33.3
20.00 2 6.1 6.1 39.4
21.00 2 6.1 6.1 45.5
22.00 2 6.1 6.1 51.5
23.00 2 6.1 6.1 57.6
24.00 3 9.1 9.1 66.7
25.00 1 3.0 3.0 69.7
26.00 2 6.1 6.1 75.8
27.00 3 9.1 9.1 84.8
28.00 2 6.1 6.1 90.9
29.00 2 6.1 6.1 97.0
31.00 1 3.0 3.0 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.16 shows effectiveness of immediate supervisor subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of
immediate supervisor. It is clear from the table that the mean is 21.21, the maximum is 31 and the minimum is 7. The total number of respondents is 33.
The results show that the immediate supervisors only promote the careers of certain workers; they do not look after the respondents’ interests, who are not considered when decisions are made.
4.3.4.1.5 Question 31: Equality
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on equality
Table 4.17:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about equality
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
9.00 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
11.00 1 3.0 3.0 6.1
13.00 2 6.1 6.1 12.1
14.00 2 6.1 6.1 18.2
15.00 4 12.1 12.1 30.3
16.00 5 15.2 15.2 45.5
17.00 3 9.1 9.1 54.5
18.00 3 9.1 9.1 63.6
19.00 3 9.1 9.1 72.7
20.00 2 6.1 6.1 78.8
22.00 1 3.0 3.0 81.8
24.00 3 9.1 9.1 90.9
25.00 2 6.1 6.1 97.0
27.00 1 3.0 3.0 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.17 shows equality subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of equality. It is clear from the table
that the mean is 17.7, the maximum is 27 and the minimum is 9. The total number of the respondents is 33. The results clearly show that the same standards are not applicable to everyone in the workplace: some respondents are not given equal opportunity to advance their careers and do not receive the same treatment as others.
4.3.4.1.6 Question 32: Job security
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on job security
Table 4.18:
Frequency distribution of perception about job security
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
5.00 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
8.00 1 3.0 3.0 6.1
9.00 1 3.0 3.0 9.1
10.00 1 3.0 3.0 12.1
11.00 2 6.1 6.1 18.2
14.00 4 12.1 12.1 30.3
15.00 2 6.1 6.1 36.4
16.00 1 3.0 3.0 39.4
17.00 4 12.1 12.1 51.5
19.00 1 3.0 3.0 54.5
20.00 3 9.1 9.1 63.6
21.00 3 9.1 9.1 72.7
23.00 3 9.1 9.1 81.8
25.00 6 18.2 18.2 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.18 shows job security subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of job security. It is clear
from the table that the mean is 17.7, the maximum is 25 and the minimum is 5.
The total number of the respondents is 33. On average, the results also show that the respondents do not have promotion possibilities in their jobs.
4.3.4.1.7 Question 33: Working conditions
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on working conditions
Table 4.19:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about working conditions
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
6.00 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
8.00 3 9.1 9.1 12.1
9.00 2 6.1 6.1 18.2
10.00 1 3.0 3.0 21.2
12.00 2 6.1 6.1 27.3
13.00 1 3.0 3.0 30.3
14.00 4 12.1 12.1 42.4
16.00 3 9.1 9.1 51.5
17.00 1 3.0 3.0 54.5
18.00 2 6.1 6.1 60.6
19.00 3 9.1 9.1 69.7
21.00 1 3.0 3.0 72.7
22.00 5 15.2 15.2 87.9
24.00 2 6.1 6.1 93.9
25.00 2 6.1 6.1 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.19 shows working conditions subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of working conditions. It is clear from the table that the mean is 16.3, the maximum is 25 and the minimum
is 6. The total number of the respondents is 33. The results shows that safety standards are not being implemented at work: the working environment is not comfortable and not safe.
4.3.4.1.8 Question 34: Relationship with team members
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on their relationship with their team members.
Table 4.20:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about relationship with team members
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
11.00 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
17.00 2 6.1 6.1 9.1
19.00 2 6.1 6.1 15.2
20.00 2 6.1 6.1 21.2
21.00 2 6.1 6.1 27.3
22.00 1 3.0 3.0 30.3
23.00 2 6.1 6.1 36.4
24.00 4 12.1 12.1 48.5
25.00 3 9.1 9.1 57.6
26.00 2 6.1 6.1 63.6
27.00 2 6.1 6.1 69.7
28.00 1 3.0 3.0 72.7
29.00 1 3.0 3.0 75.8
30.00 8 24.2 24.2 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.20 shows the relationship with team members subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of relationship with team members. It is clear from the table that the mean is 24.4,
the maximum is 30 and the minimum is 11. The total number of the respondents is 33. On average, the results of the study clearly show that the respondents do not get along with their team members; they do not treat others with respect and have lost trust in each other.
4.3.4.1.9 Question 35: Training in this organization
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on training at the organization.
Table 4.21:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about training in this organisation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
.00 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
21.00 1 3.0 3.0 6.1
23.00 1 3.0 3.0 9.1
24.00 1 3.0 3.0 12.1
26.00 4 12.1 12.1 24.2
27.00 1 3.0 3.0 27.3
28.00 1 3.0 3.0 30.3
29.00 2 6.1 6.1 36.4
31.00 1 3.0 3.0 39.4
32.00 1 3.0 3.0 42.4
33.00 1 3.0 3.0 45.5
34.00 5 15.2 15.2 60.6
36.00 2 6.1 6.1 66.7
37.00 4 12.1 12.1 78.8
40.00 2 6.1 6.1 84.8
43.00 3 9.1 9.1 93.9
44.00 1 3.0 3.0 97.0
48.00 1 3.0 3.0 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.21 shows training in the organization subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of training in the organization. It is clear from the table that the mean is 32.4, the maximum is 48
and the minimum is 00. The total number of respondents is 33. On average, the results indicates that there is no training plan for them, although others feel that the training they receive makes their job easier and they are able to implement the training they receive in their workplace. This is surely applicable to social workers.
4.3.4.1.10 Question 36: Conflict
The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on conflict.
Table 4.22:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about conflict
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
16.00 1 3.0 3.1 3.1
17.00 1 3.0 3.1 6.3
19.00 1 3.0 3.1 9.4
20.00 1 3.0 3.1 12.5
22.00 2 6.1 6.3 18.8
23.00 1 3.0 3.1 21.9
24.00 2 6.1 6.3 28.1
25.00 3 9.1 9.4 37.5
27.00 1 3.0 3.1 40.6
28.00 3 9.1 9.4 50.0
29.00 2 6.1 6.3 56.3
31.00 1 3.0 3.1 59.4
32.00 1 3.0 3.1 62.5
33.00 2 6.1 6.3 68.8
34.00 3 9.1 9.4 78.1
35.00 1 3.0 3.1 81.3
36.00 1 3.0 3.1 84.4
39.00 1 3.0 3.1 87.5
41.00 1 3.0 3.1 90.6
42.00 2 6.1 6.3 96.9
46.00 1 3.0 3.1 100.0
Valid
Total 32 97.0 100.0
Missing System 1 3.0
Total 33 100.0
Table 4.22 shows conflict subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for this subscale is 65; therefore, one can deduce from this data that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of conflict. It is clear from the table
that the mean is 29.3, the maximum is 46 and the minimum is 16. The total number of the respondents is 33. On average, the results from the respondents shows that top management and supervisors do not deal well with conflict. The results show that conflicts paralyze the organization and also affect the respondents’ ability to work.
4.3.4.1.11 Question 37: Communication
This dimension measures satisfaction regarding communication between supervisor and the employees in the workplace. The following table indicates the scores of the respondents on communication.
Table 4.23:
Frequency distribution of perceptions about communication
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
.00 1 3.0 3.0 3.0
21.00 1 3.0 3.0 6.1
24.00 2 6.1 6.1 12.1
25.00 1 3.0 3.0 15.2
27.00 1 3.0 3.0 18.2
28.00 2 6.1 6.1 24.2
30.00 2 6.1 6.1 30.3
31.00 1 3.0 3.0 33.3
32.00 2 6.1 6.1 39.4
33.00 1 3.0 3.0 42.4
34.00 1 3.0 3.0 45.5
35.00 1 3.0 3.0 48.5
36.00 1 3.0 3.0 51.5
37.00 1 3.0 3.0 54.5
39.00 2 6.1 6.1 60.6
40.00 2 6.1 6.1 66.7
41.00 3 9.1 9.1 75.8
42.00 3 9.1 9.1 84.8
43.00 1 3.0 3.0 87.9
45.00 1 3.0 3.0 90.9
47.00 1 3.0 3.0 93.9
49.00 2 6.1 6.1 100.0
Valid
Total 33 100.0 100.0
Table 4.23 shows communication subscale scores of the sample. The cutting score for this subscale is 65. Therefore, one can deduce that the respondents have a clinically significant problem in terms of communication. It is clear from the table that the mean score is 34, the maximum is 49 and the minimum is 00. Thus, all respondents have scored below 65. The total number of the respondents is 33.
